Marsha Blackburn

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I ask my colleagues to join me in congratulating Marty Dickens as he retires from his position as president of AT&T Tennessee after a distinguished 39-year career in the telecommunications industry. Beginning his career with the company in 1969, Marty worked in the public affairs and regulatory departments and comptroller's office before joining BellSouth International in 1992. He has served on the boards of directors of BellSouth operations in Brazil, Venezuela, Panama, Nicaragua, Israel, China and Denmark. Since moving to Nashville to become president of the company in 1999, Marty has become a force not just in the Nashville business community, but in its charitable and civic life as well. Not content with the challenges of running a major regional employer, Marty sought out other ways to contribute such as serving on the Board of Trustees at Belmont University, on the community boards of the YMCA, Boy Scouts, Vanderbilt University's Blair School of Music, as well as the Adventure Science Center, among others. Marty has also served on the corporate boards of Genesco and First American Financial Holdings and has served as chairman of both the Nashville Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Nashville Area Chamber of Commerce. Most recently, he was honored as the 2007 Outstanding Nashvillian of the Year by the Kiwanis Club of Nashville. Madam Speaker, please join me in congratulating Marty Dickens on an exemplary record of service in business, in charity and in our community. He has set an example that we would all do well to emulate, and we wish him well in his retirement.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, there is quite a bit of disgust with what is taking place in New York City today with Ahmadinejad at Columbia University. There is disgust also with the United Nations. And rightfully so. And we are hearing from our constituents about this. And then to top it off, the New York Times, who for 2 weeks denied that they gave special price breaks to moveon.org for the liberal group's ad attacking General Petraeus, finally yesterday through their public editor or their ombudsman had to come clean with the truth. Yes, indeed, moveon.org should have paid $142,000 for that ad, but somehow it was cut in half. The reduced price was a mistake, they said, and they admitted they had violated their own advertising policy of barring attacks of a personal nature. Two pretty glaring mistakes, don't you think? The Times claims it is not a poster child for the liberal media, but in the recent admission that sometimes reporters had fabricated stories while management cut a deal to a liberal attack group and violated their own ethics, well, as my grandmother would say, their little actions sure are speaking a lot louder than their words. Bless their little hearts.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today as a strong supporter of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, SCHIP, and I support a responsible reauthorization of this very successful program. Everybody knows it is going to expire on September 30, unless Congress passes reauthorizing legislation by this date. However, the Democrat leadership in the House and the Senate have been unsuccessful in completing the package. I am proud today to stand as an original cosponsor of legislation that would reauthorize SCHIP for a period of 18 months. By reauthorizing the program for an additional 18 months, we are taking the politics out of SCHIP policy and protecting the children who are in this program and who deserve the care. It is an extension of the program that we need; and, if it is not enacted, at least 12 States are going to find themselves without SCHIP funds. There is a very simple solution to the SCHIP problem: Support the Barton-Deal SCHIP legislation.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will hear from General David Petraeus on the Iraq progress report. He is going to tell us what worked, what hasn't, and what needs to be done. And Congress should listen to the general and to Ambassador Crocker. My position is that we should have been listening all along to our commanders and leaders on the ground, and the testimony from General Petraeus and Ambassador Crocker should be heard without prejudice. They are men of impeccable credentials, and it is troubling that the antiwar liberals are already moving en masse to discredit and dismiss the testimony without even hearing a single word of what they have had to say. The debate over the surge should be over. While much remains to be done in Iraq, there is evidence that the surge is working and stabilizing that country and improving the security situation. Finally, the consequences of failure in Iraq are monumental. A failure in Iraq will embolden al Qaeda. They will use the nation as a launching pad for attacks. Iran will move in and fill that void. It is a monumental day in the war on terror. We should approach it with an open mind.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the Charlie Norwood CLEAR Act of 2007. Our late friend and colleague, Representative Charlie Norwood, introduced commonsense legislation to institute an efficient system, an efficient system, of identifying and detaining criminal aliens. Our good friend is gone, but his idea remains as viable today as it was the day that he first introduced it in the 108th Congress. There are 400,000 alien absconders in our country, with 285,000 possessing criminal records. This bill targets those criminals by increasing Federal funds to local law enforcement agencies that need those funds, providing police that are on the beat with the resources they need and giving them the background, the information, to enforce immigration law. It also cuts funding to sanctuary cities which have enacted laws prohibiting local police from detaining and arresting criminal aliens. Most notably, it requires the Federal Government to take these criminal aliens into custody within 48 hours. Join me in supporting the Charlie Norwood CLEAR Act of 2007.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, last month three college students were murdered by a horrifically violent criminal alien with three previous felony arrests, including the rape of a 5-year-old girl. He should have been deported, but Newark, New Jersey's ``sanctuary'' law prevented local law enforcement from working with the Feds to detain and deport him. We need an efficient system of identifying and removing violent criminal elements. That is why I am introducing the Charlie Norwood CLEAR Act of 2007. This bill increases Federal funds to local law enforcement agencies, provides the information they need, requires the Feds to remove and deport criminal aliens and reduces Federal funds for cities that provide safe haven to violent criminal aliens that harm the public. I urge all of my colleagues to join me in supporting the Charlie Norwood CLEAR Act of 2007.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. And he is exactly right about the cost and comments about the portfolio. And I think that many of our colleagues would be interested in seeing what the balance is in our portfolio as to where we are pooling our energy sources. And you are right. A well-balanced and appropriate portfolio is going to have many different components to it. Just as with trade, we are going to see many different components in that. We are going to have an opportunity to look at how trade affects this. And you have just put a poster up about our trade deficit, and we certainly can see where we are fitting in here with some of our natural gas and our petroleum and petroleum products and what that means to our trade balance. And at the same time as we look at trade, we look at the portfolio that we have stateside and look at what is contained in that portfolio, and you are exactly right to bring those issues forward. I will just say I thank the gentleman again for yielding. I do think that as we look at this issue, the cost to consumers and the effect on our GDP has to be considered as well as moving forward. The gentlewoman from Virginia mentioned a biodiesel alternative, algae, and we know that for carbon capture, sometimes that is used to help spur the growth of that algae that is then turned into biodiesel. So you are using an unwanted byproduct to create an item that can be the genesis for an alternative fuel, making certain that we open up American energy resources for American energy solutions. Our domestic energy supply is abundant. And then in order to capitalize, to be resourceful and utilize that, making certain that we are spurring American innovation to find those solutions. And, again, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. The gentleman is exactly right on that. They are expensive forms of energy and electricity. And one of the other components to that, in our Select Committee on Environment and Global Warming today, we had a hearing dealing with carbon emissions and carbon offsets and the cap and trade system that Europe is currently involved in to meet their Kyoto protocols. Well, the interesting point of this is if you were to enact some of the sequestration encaptured for CO2 emissions, what we are seeing and what we are hearing from some research is that this could end up raising a household electric bill $40 a month. Now, what we do know is we have a lot of Americans that would not take kindly to seeing government mandates increase their electric bill every month while we are still not sure if our CO2 emissions are causing the Earth to warm or if it's cyclical. Is it just part of a natural scientific cycle that our wonderful world goes through? We have times of cooling and times of warming. So there are lots of questions that are around this issue, and before we make hasty decisions, one thing we need to do is be certain that we tend to what we know is on our plate; that we tend to, first of all, address lowering the restrictions on our domestic sources of energy, making certain that we can avail ourselves of the oil, of the gas, of the coal that we have domestically, making certain that we are doing the right type of research and looking for alternative sources, making certain that nuclear is available for our power generation. As you said, the least expensive, the cleanest form of electric power generation is the new nuclear. And I will ask the gentleman to reiterate those statistics.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank you for the work on the House Energy Action Team and the leadership that you have provided there on this issue, and for your consistent message that I think most Americans share with us. They understand that fuel sources are abundant in this Nation. The problem is they're restricted. And there is so much regulation and so much red tape that you have to go through in order to arrive at a utilization point for those fuel sources. Now, we've just come past the second remembrance of Katrina. And as we have done that, and as I spent some time down in the gulf coast region during August, so many people would say, you know, it's amazing to me that the Federal Government has not made significant changes in putting refineries, in opening other resources. We're still centered around here, and the hurricane season is coming. And that causes people to say, I question you for what you have not done. And we hear that from our constituents. And I question you about the price at the pump, because they now understand that a lack of refinery capacity in this country, overregulation of refineries, restricted access to fuel sources, yields a higher price at the pump for transportation fuels. It yields a higher mark on the bill when they get it for their home heating oil, for gas for their home, for electricity for their home. They understand this. And I fully believe that the liberal leadership in this House will have to answer to the American people for the high cost to consumers. And that's the first point that I want to touch on today. As you look at what was passed in the energy bill they brought forward that really has no energy production in it, it just deals with all these global warming measures or conservation measures at some point but not really with energy. Just looking at the cost of government-mandated efficiency, now, if I have ever heard an oxymoron, that is probably is it. Government-mandated efficiency. It's not driven by consumers, it's not driven by innovators, but by the government saying reach this mark. What we are seeing is that the new appliance efficiency standards have raised the cost of a good top-loading washing machine, which is the kind I still have in my house. The kind I choose to use is a top loader. They have raised that to over $900. And that is not according to you or me or the Congressional Budget Office. That is according to Consumer Reports. And we know that if the Senate had their way, then it would cost even more. So on our appliances, the mandated efficiency standards are going to end up costing our consumers more when they go to make that purchase. So the gas to get in the car is going to cost them more. The electricity to power the computer is going to cost them more in order to get to the purchase point for that appliance that is going to cost them more.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, it is a privilege for me to rise today and honor Mrs. Elizabeth Norworth. Mrs. Norworth, better known as ``Betty,'' has been a dedicated federal employee with the Memphis Division of the Federal Bureau of Investigation for the last 60 years. Her tenure with the FBI is the second longest in the 100-year history of the Bureau. When Mrs. Norworth first joined the FBI in 1947, Harry S. Truman was our President, the CIA had just been created and the cold war was well under way. Like our Nation, Mrs. Norworth rose to the challenge of the times and met each day as a public servant through the embodiment of her beloved agency: fidelity, bravery and integrity. Thirteen years later, Mrs. Norworth would accept her current position as secretary to Special Agent in Charge where she received numerous accolades for her exceptional job performance. Throughout her years of service Mrs. Norworth has not only become a highly respected employee at the Bureau but she has become the embodiment of what a public servant should be. Madam Speaker, I urge all of my colleagues to join me today in thanking ``Betty'' Norworth for her 60 years of service, sacrifice, and continued commitment to the United States.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, please join me in recognizing the contributions of an outstanding member of our Williamson County community, Mr. T. Vance Little. A descendent of pioneer settlers, graduate of Vanderbilt Law School, and member of several historic, preservation, and patriotic organizations, Mr. Little has dedicated himself to providing leadership in his community. This distinguished citizen is a noted author, journalist, and host of local historic television programs. He is the historian for the city of Brentwood, chairman of the Friends of the Williamson County Museum, secretary of the Williamson County Records Commission, and a member of Brentwood United Methodist Church. He has also sponsored a monthly program on local history at the Martin Center for the past 10 years. Mr. Little has received many honors including the Heritage Foundation ``Patron of the Year,'' the Williamson County Historical Society ``Volunteer of the Year,'' the Brentwood Chamber of Commerce ``Citizen of the Year,'' and the Leadership Brentwood ``Civic Award.'' Recently, in 2006, he received the prestigious ``Living Legend'' award from the Williamson County Chamber of Commerce. Mr. Little has reminded us that we have no more important obligation to our children and to ourselves than preserving our history. We appreciate all that he has done and thank him for the exceptional example that he has provided for others. I ask that you please join me in honoring Mr. T. Vance Little.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, during the district word period back in my State of Tennessee, I traveled, talked with many and listened to my constituents. What they are wanting is people in Congress to solve problems. In their estimation, you are either part of the problem or part of the solution, and there is no in between. Yet they have not seen the liberal majority in this Congress tackle one of the most pressing problems of our time, that of illegal immigration, which is only getting worse every single minute. That is why this week I am introducing the Charlie Norwood CLEAR Act of 2007. This legislation provides clear authority for local law enforcement to enforce immigration law, and actually requires the Feds to remove and deport criminal aliens detained by local law enforcement officials. What a novel concept, deportation. It also sends a tough message to sanctuary cities by reducing Federal funds to those cities that provide sanctuary to violent criminal aliens. I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting the Charlie Norwood CLEAR Act of 2007.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 835, my voting card malfunctioned and did not register my vote. Had my vote been accurately recorded, I would have been recorded as ``nay.''

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule that is bringing this legislation to the floor today, because what we have is 768 pages of a bill, H.R. 3221, and, guess what, it doesn't do a thing about producing one drop of energy. It does not get the price down at the pump. And that is what the American people continue to ask us, what are you going to do about high home heating bills? What are you going to do about the price at the pump? And, yes, indeed, as my esteemed colleague just said, alternatives are important. Looking to the future is important. R&D, all of that. We have to have emphasis there. But at the same time, we have to realize production, American production and American solutions are important to this debate, and we have got 768 pages that do not put the emphasis on American production to address this. What we do have is increased regulation. We have got a section in this bill that would put the Federal Government more into the process by which States develop and enforce their own building codes. Regulation is not going to get us to further conservation. We know that efficiency is important. We know that conservation is important. But we also know if you overregulate and if you overtax, you are going to be killing jobs. We know for a fact that if you get in here and you tax something more, you are going to get less of it. If you incentivize it, you are going to get more of it. The American people want to see the price down at the pump. That is not what they are going to see in this bill that is brought before us today. Conservation and efficiency is important. It is not the total answer, and we are missing a great opportunity to incentivize American production of American fuels that will move us towards energy independence. We are not doing that with this legislation. In the portion of this that deals with the tax, one of the things that we have seen happen here is that we have more taxes. They put cigar taxes in place. They put health insurance taxes in place. I tell you, this new majority, if it is moving, if it is shaking, if it is waving in the wind, they are going to tax it, because they need money to pay for the programs that they are putting on the books. And it is the American taxpayer that is paying more at the pump that is watching their gas tax go up. They are watching cigarette and cigar taxes go up. When they get their statement for their health insurance, they are going to see a tax on that, because they had to find a way to pay for all these new programs. Mr. Speaker, they are just addicted to putting a tax on everything that is moving. We are seeing the same thing take place in this lack- of-energy bill that is brought before us today.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to commend the efforts of several of our 7th District constituents who are working to rebuild the shattered healthcare system in Iraq. The collaboration between Dr. Goran Bekhtyar, a Kurdish-American physician from Franklin, Tennessee and Smith & Nephew, a global medical technology company based in Memphis, demonstrates to all of us that individual people can indeed achieve remarkable results. I came to know Dr. Bekhtyar several years ago through his service in the Tennessee state government. After the fall of the Saddam Hussein regime, Dr. Bekhtyar set aside his medical practice in Franklin, Tennessee to work full-time at rebuilding the medical system in his native Iraq. He founded a non-profit organization, Improved Health Systems for Iraq (IHSI), and has traveled frequently to Iraq to advise health officials. During his brief visits home, he has worked tirelessly to enlist American healthcare providers and companies in his efforts. Dr. Bekhtyar told me of the primitive conditions and lack of modern equipment that prevents Iraqi doctors from effectively treating their patients. I encouraged him to contact Smith & Nephew, a global medical technology company that specializes in developing Orthopaedic Trauma & Clinical Therapies, Orthopaedic Reconstruction, Endoscopy and Advanced Wound Management products. After meeting with Dr. Bekhtyar, Smith & Nephew leaders such as Dwayne Montgomery, Ken Reali, Zane Wood, and Mark Augusti immediately committed to assisting the efforts of IHSI. Over the past six months, this team has spearheaded a donation drive through its Project Apollo Program, which will provide nearly half a million dollars of vital and crucial medical devices to orthopaedic surgeons and hospitals in Iraq. The program will provide advanced, world-class products such as non-locking plates and screws, and the Exogen ultrasonic bone healing system. Dr. Bekhtyar will return to Iraq on August 23rd and begin the distribution of the medical devices to Iraqi hospitals and physicians. Madam Speaker, please join me in commending the passion and perseverance of Dr. Goran Bekhtyar and the initiative and generosity of Smith & Nephew. Together, they are setting an example of selflessness that we would all do well to follow.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, you know, to the Americans who are watching what is taking place on this floor over the past couple of days, it probably seems like a story nightmare, what is up is down, what is down is up; 215 is assumed to be less than 213. There you go. And I do think that Thursday night's vote is still going to continue to be one of those actions of disgrace when we talk about the history of this House. But, Mr. Speaker, it is a pattern of action that we see. They are for tax increases. They voted for the single largest tax increase in history, they did that on March 29th, for personal earmarks, and then admitting that they're putting earmarks in legislation to buy votes. That is taking place. Oh, and hiding those earmarks in slush funds. We forgot about that one. Record spending. Never in the history of the world has a legislative body spent as much money as this body is spending under Democrat control. $193 billion in cuts to Medicare, inflicting that on our senior citizens, and yes, fixing that vote to give illegal immigrants benefits, shelter, food, paychecks, putting them before the American people. We will continue to fight for freedom and stand for security.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise this morning to speak about the Ag approps bill that is going to come before us, and the culture of tax and spend that is just running unabated in this House. And why should we expect the Ag approps bill to be any different? Well, of course it is not any different. It is going to be more of the same; it is going to be more of the same tax and spend. And again we see a piece of legislation that is spending more than what the President requested, which many of us think was too much in the first place; 5.6 percent more than the President requested and 5.9 percent more than last year. You know what, Mr. Speaker? There are a lot of Americans that would like to see a 5.9 percent increase in their paycheck. It is time for this House to get its fiscal house in order. It is time for the liberal left to stop spending the taxpayer's money. This is the ``Hold-On-To-Your-Wallet'' Congress. They're proving it every single day.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I support the original intent of SCHIP to cover our low-income children at 200 percent of the Federal poverty level; yet the bill before us really strays from that, and we all know it. And we're debating this under a lockdown rule because the Rules Committee refused to allow Republican amendments to this bill, and I will tell you, I found that 1 a.m. meeting for the Rules Committee informative and entertaining in an unfortunate sense. The debate on this, as my colleague said, is pretty simple: Who will manage and control the health care sector that comprises one-seventh of our Nation's economy. That's what this is about today. Are individual Americans going to have the freedom to make those choices or are those Americans going to be relegated to being a faceless file on a bureaucrat's desk with that bureaucrat making those life-and-death decisions? Our future health care system is going to be shaped by the way we answer those questions on this floor today. Under this Democrat bill, there will be billions spent to enroll children into SCHIP. I encourage my colleagues to oppose this bill.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak against this extremely flawed SCHIP bill. I support the original intent of SCHIP, which is to cover our moderate- to low-income children at 200 percent of the poverty level. Yet the bill before us today goes much further. It does expand the program, and it does move it from a block grant to an entitlement, and it moves patients towards a universal, government- run health care that shifts patients from private care to a massive government entitlement program. And I know what runaway health care costs in a broken system look like. As a former member of the Tennessee Senate, I watched TennCare, Tennessee's statewide Medicaid-managed care service, which was granted under one of those waivers, I have watched this thing invoke stress, pain and hardship on both health care providers and consumers. It does not work. Someone always has to pay the bill. Over 10 years, also, this CHAMP bill would make $193 billion worth of cuts from Medicare services for our seniors. It didn't work. It is not going to work here.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, what a fascinating debate it is that we are having; and I thank the gentleman for yielding a few moments of time. You know, we're beginning to hear from some of the nearly 54,000 Medicare beneficiaries that we have in our district because they have figured out that this is going to be financed on their back; and we have nearly 9,000 Medicare Advantage beneficiaries that are in our district. Our Congressional Budget Office estimates are telling us that this looks like it's going to end up costing us over $11 million in our district. Now, we know that we're going to see the tax on private insurance. We've heard from some of our individuals who are questioning why in the world are you putting a tax, you've got a tax on everything, why are you taxing our health insurance benefits? We're hearing from our tobacco farmers and our friends in the agriculture community that are quite upset about cigarette and cigar and tobacco taxes there. And as the gentleman from Georgia just said, this grand plan basically says, seniors, we need you to smoke more so that you can help pay for this plan to expand SCHIP to middle- and upper-income families. And being a mother, I can tell you that a 25-year-old probably is a little bit offended to be called a child, because 25-year-olds are adults. They are young adults, and they are working, and they do not need to be on those programs.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the chairman, and I thank the gentleman from Georgia for his legislation to make a 1 percent reduction. We have got to start taking these first steps. Year after year, I feel there is a group of us that come down here talking about how we slow the growth of government, talking about how we make reductions in what the government spends and talking about the necessity to begin with those little, tiny savings, \1/4\ percent, \1/ 2\ percent, a solid percent, that will yield a savings. We are talking about $5.5 million. I find it just amazing that we can't even find $50,000 in there. We can't agree to make that kind of reduction. There are ways to do this. That is something government should be doing. The gentleman from Wisconsin mentioned the SCHIP program. Indeed, in our Committee on Energy and Commerce, we have been quite disheartened that the SCHIP bill that he mentioned is not going through regular order. We didn't have a committee hearing in our Health Subcommittee. We would have welcomed that. There is nobody against health care for low-income children. What we have great concerns about is all the other stuff, all the pay-fors that are in this bill, all the expansion of policy, taking a block grant, moving it to an entitlement. It brings us back to the initial question with the gentleman's bill on this appropriations bill of making a 1 percent reduction. There has to be a way to yield a savings that will pay for some of these things, because we can't take it out of Medicare Advantage. The SCHIP legislation that the gentleman mentioned would make an incredible reduction to Medicare Advantage. My goodness, we would see $193 billion in reductions to our Medicare Advantage program over a 10- year period of time, which would be $15.3 billion in cuts to Medicare Part A for seniors. This would include skilled nursing facilities, rehab facilities, and long-term care hospitals. That would be one of the pay-fors in the SCHIP bill that the gentleman referenced. That is why the gentleman from Georgia has a great amendment that says, let's get going. In title 1, page 1 of this bill, let's start finding a way to make some reductions. $9.6 billion in cuts to Medicare Part D for seniors is in that bill, that SCHIP bill that didn't go through subcommittee, didn't get a complete markup in committee. It is going to be moved to the floor. So, there, again, the gentleman from Wisconsin's points on this bill is the reason we have this amendment to title 1, section 1 of this bill, to make that reduction in the Secretary's spending, $5.5 million. Certainly, we can find $50,000. $3.6 billion would be cut out of end- stage renal disease in that bill. There has to be a way to start making reductions so that you're paying for the government that you are trying to spend, the money you are trying to spend, the government you are putting out there. There has got to be a way to pay for this. Unfortunately, that is not something that we are seeing considered. Mr. Chairman, $50,000 may not be much to the Secretary, but it is a lot to my constituents in Tennessee and especially those that are on Medicare Advantage.

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. I thank the gentleman from California for the time. Mr. Speaker, today I'm rising to oppose this bill. We are all for fair pay; we are all for equal pay for equal work, and we are all against discrimination. But, Mr. Speaker, H.R. 2831 does much more than just simply overturn a Supreme Court case in order to provide relief to one plaintiff, Lilly Ledbetter. It constitutes a major change in and extended application of employment discrimination law. In my opinion, what this change would do would serve to impede justice and undermine the important goal of having allegations of discrimination expeditiously resolved. The bill essentially limits the 1964 Civil Rights Act statute of limitations regarding almost every claim of discrimination available under Federal law and potentially broadens the scope and application of the civil rights laws to entirely new fact patterns, practices and claims. It also would allow an employee or any individual who can arguably claim to be affected by an allegedly discriminatory decision relating to compensation wages, benefits, or any other practice to sue for discrimination that may have occurred years or even decades in the past. The anticipated increase in legal and recordkeeping costs created by this legislation would, indeed, be staggering. Congress should not be in the business of removing incentives for prompt resolution of discrimination claims. And that is what this would do; it would remove the incentive to find a prompt and timely resolution to discrimination claims. I thank the gentleman from California, and I encourage my colleagues to vote against the bill.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I rise to address the concerns of many of our small businesses in the Seventh District of Tennessee. The ongoing debate over illegal immigration has brought many issues to light. While this issue is trudging its way through Congress, small businesses are stuck trying to figure out how to confront the problems of illegal immigration that are created at the local level. For instance, these businesses should have the right to refuse to hire or fire a person who cannot speak English. An employer who signs the paycheck and pays payroll taxes, and their customers, should be able to communicate with an employee. But under current law that small businessman can be sued by the Federal Government for refusing to hire or in some cases firing a person who cannot communicate in English. As ridiculous as this sounds, it is true. That is why today I will offer a commonsense amendment to the Commerce-Justice-State approps bill that will close the ridiculous loophole and offer some protection to the businesses that drive our economy and employ our citizens. I urge all of my colleagues to join this effort to protect our mom- and-pop businesses, not because it is a hard line against illegal immigration, but because it is the right thing to do.

Mrs. BLACKBURN

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in support of the Stearns- Blackburn amendment to protest the actions of a rogue government agency that really is out of control, and I thank Mr. Stearns for his good work and his good efforts on this with us. The EEOC, as we have heard, it is taxpayer funded, and it is tasked with eradicating discrimination in the workplace. Now, unfortunately, the organization's actions are speaking louder than their words, and certainly they are not in step with the mission that they are instructed to meet. What we see is an agency that is waging war against private employers who have English-speaking policies and English-only language policies in their workplace and with their workforce. Now, as my colleague from Florida has said, the situation we have discussed is in 2004, we had two employees from a Massachusetts Salvation Army Thrift Store. They were instructed to learn English within 1 year to comply with that organization's English-only language policy on the job. The employees refused to comply or even to make a good-faith effort. I think that everyone would like to see them make a good-faith effort to learn the language. And they were summarily dismissed in December of 2005. So they had that full year. Interestingly enough, the two employees were able to navigate their way through the bureaucratic system and get the EEOC to file a discrimination lawsuit against the Salvation Army in April 2007, despite their limited command of the English language. The turn of events would be laughable if it were not true, and if the consequences were not as grave as they are. Yet, in 2006 alone, roughly 200 charges were filed alleging discrimination due to English-language-only policies in different workplaces. This explosion of claims against workplace English is a 612 percent increase since 1996. Mr. Chairman, I think that is one of the things that is of concern to us; 612 percent. That is the increase in these claims against American small businesses, against the businesses that are employing our citizens. We have gone from 32 cases in 1996 to 228 in 2002, according to the EEOC alone, and what we see is those misplaced priorities of the EEOC. As my colleague previously mentioned, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has a backlog of 45,265 cases right now. They expect that that backlog will grow to 67,108 complaints in fiscal year 2008. Mr. Chairman, it does not take an organizational genius to figure this out. What we see is people are not getting their workload done. What we see is the EEOC is putting their energy on something that they don't need to be putting it on, and they have those misplaced priorities, so therefore the items that they are supposed to be addressing in order to meet their mission are languishing in their in- box. They are never getting around to addressing those files. So those are continuing to pile up. What we see is that they should be taking their resources; they have plenty of employees, they have plenty of funds. This is not an issue of them having more money or more resources. This is an issue of them putting their work and making their priorities where they need to be, of addressing these problems, kind of getting their nose to the grindstone, if you will, and getting in behind those cases and getting them done not over here suing U.S. small businesses that are employing our citizens, not over here suing the mom-and-pops who have the right, because they are signing the paycheck, they are paying the payroll taxes, they establish their workplace policies. And they have the right to say we would like you to learn English. We should be incentivizing them to insist on having those employees learn English so that they better communicate with their employer and so they know how to communicate and they are learning by that interaction with those customers. We know so well, those of us who have so many small businesses in our districts, many of these small businesses see these people as true friends.